Keystone XL Pipeline Analysis - Research Paper Example

? The Keystone XL Pipeline is actually the final phase of a system of existing pipelines that begin in Canada and end at terminals in Cushing, Oklahoma and Patoka, Illinois. The existing pipelines, termed Phases I and II currently carry about 500,000 barrels per day of unrefined petroleum products from sources in Canada, Wyoming and Montana. Phase III of the system is currently under construction. This section of pipeline will connect the terminus at Cushing, Oklahoma with refining facilities in Houston, Texas and Port Arthur, Louisiana. Once this section is completed, Canadian petroleum produces will have their long sought-after pipeline terminus in a tidewater location as well as direct access to Gulf region refining facilities. The fourth and final phase of the Keystone Pipeline system is referred to as the Keystone XL Pipeline. This is by far the most ambitious expansion of the existing pipeline system. The Keystone XL Pipeline calls for the installation of over 1000 miles of 36” steel pipe beginning in Hardisty, Canada and ending in Steele City, Nebraska. This additional piping will increase the carrying capacity of the entire Keystone Pipeline system to over one million barrels of crude petroleum products per day. While the first three phases of the Keystone Pipeline have has supporters at all levels of government and in the business sector, the Keystone XL segment has been met with protest and controversy almost from the first moment is was proposed. Many different groups have taken their turn criticizing the pipeline project. The controversy has caused the Obama administration to suspend the permitting process that is necessary for the project to get started. Through regulatory control, the Obama administration has halted planned construction since March of 2013. The depth and breadth of the protests has caused this regulatory action. The first set of protests against the Keystone XL segment centers on environmental concerns. Some of these concerns are primarily local and regional in nature. The most urgent of these concerns is the effect a ruptured oil pipeline and the subsequent oil spill would have on the Ogallala Aquifer. This important aquifer can be found under the surface of many of the Great Plains states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska Oklahoma and Texas. The aquifer is massive but relatively shallow. The importance of keeping this aquifer clean and safe from petrochemical pollution cannot be overstated. The primary use for the Ogallala Aquifer is irrigation of crops. The invention of center-pivot irrigation in the 1940’s and broad implementation of the technology in the 1950’s allowed farmers in the Great Plains to dependably raise crops such as corn, soybeans and peanuts that traditionally needed to be grown in more humid climates. This shift in land use forced out less water intensive forms of agriculture such as dry land ranching and created an agricultural economy heavily dependent on irrigation for success. Before the advent of the Keystone pipeline system, the greatest threat to the Ogallala Aquifer was over pumping. Some regions of northern Texas and Oklahoma discontinued or diminished water extraction from the aquifer because the water table was dropping at and increasing rate. Withdraw from the aquifer greatly exceeded the rate of recharge, threatening all agricultural activity in the region. Farmers were forced to adjust their methods of cropping and pasturing. The water table has since bounced back and is at near normal levels because of these changes made in the 1980’s. This example of cooperation between environmentalists and farmers is offered to show that the population of the Great Plains region recognizes that protecting the Ogallala Aquifer is in the best interest of everyone in the entire region. This explains the widespread opposition to the Keystone XL portion of the pipeline. In addition to providing water for irrigation, over 80% of the drinking water for residences is extracted from the aquifer. The Keystone XL phase cuts right through the environmentally sensitive region of Kansas known as the Sand Hills. This is a major point of recharge for the northern region of the aquifer. An oil spill in this ecologically and environmentally important region would be catastrophic (Little , 2009). Estimated distances of travel for dissolved and undissolved petroleum products that are carried in the Keystone Pipeline system are nearly 1000 kilometers. If an oil spill did occur in the Sand hills area of Nebraska, a large portion of the Ogallala Aquifer would be permanently polluted, with no way to correct or clean-up the problem. The water would be rendered unfit for human consumption as well as for agricultural use. Opposition to the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused an odd paring of environmentalists and agribusiness interests, two sides that are often at odds with each other. An initial environmental impact assessment was conducted as required by law and indicated that there was no real environmental concern with the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline. This report was refuted by all opposition parties, especially because the consulting firm Cardno Entrix conducted the study. This firm is a major subcontractor to TransCanada, the corporation that owns the Keystone pipeline system. Accusations of conflict of interest lead to a rally of 40,000 people on the Mall in Washington D.C.in February of 2013 designed to show broad opposition to the proposed route. The Obama administration responded by halting the permitting process for the Keystone XL portion of the pipeline so that newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry could be brought up to speed on the particulars of the project and so that additional environmental impact studies could be done by impartial contractors and government agencies. In addition to the regional environmental concern that the Keystone XL phase causes, there is a broader environmental concerned being raised by environmentalists in Canada, the United States and around the world. This concern centers on the amount of additional carbon dioxide that will be introduced into the atmosphere because of the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline. Much of this concern centers on the nature of the tar sands that will be developed largely because of the completion of the Keystone XL phase. Northern Alberta province in Canada is home to the largest supply of tar sands in the world (Pohl, 2011). Tar sands, also called oil sands, are a geologic feature that is a conglomeration of sand, water, gravel and a petroleum product called bitumen. In its natural state, bitumen is not viscous, it is a solid. As a result, traditional oil drilling techniques cannot bring this product to the surface for use. The means employed by drilling companies to free the bitumen from the other materials require a great amount of energy. The process involves injecting superheated steam into the bitumen deposits, making the bitumen viscous and able to be pumped from the ground. A second method involves stripping the soil and gravel that covers the bitumen deposit, scooping up the bitumen and then transporting it to a processing facility so the bitumen can be extracted. Both of these methods involve the heating and use of fresh water. Once the water is used, it can never be used for any useful purpose again. It is contaminated and must be held in a storage pond. Seepage from these ponds has been found as much as 600 kilometers downstream from the waste retention site. The greatest threat caused by using tar sands is the impact it will have on global climate change. Bitumen is a very dirty fuel (Avery, 2013). Processing the bitumen into usable crude oil and then burning the refined products from the bitumen creates three times more greenhouse gas emissions than extracting and refining light sweet crude oil. Greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide are believed by the vast majority of scientists to be contributing to global climate change. Measurable amounts of carbon dioxide are approaching 400 parts per million. In the history of humans on earth, there has never been so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere as there is now. Much of that carbon dioxide is coming from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil, natural gas and bitumen. Many scientists and environmentalists are upset about the Keystone XL pipeline because it is specifically designed to increase the capacity of TransCanada to mine tar sands. This development of a new, vast source of petroleum runs counter to what we need to do in order to combat climate change, the environmentalists argue. Instead of developing new sources of fossil fuels, we should be focusing our efforts on creating sources of clean, renewable energy. The Keystone XL phase is on hold currently because of these global and regional environmental concerns. However, many individuals, companies and organizations are pushing for completion of the project as soon as possible. Some feel that delaying the completion of this project is a very bad idea. They want the Keystone XL pipeline to be completed for several different reasons. The first organization that is pushing for the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline is TransCanada, of course. This company has invested billions of dollars in the existing Keystone pipeline stages and feels that the Keystone XL pipeline will be very lucrative (Keystone, 2013). The cost of Keystone XL phase will be roughly seven billion dollars. The sooner they can complete the segment, the sooner diluted bitumen can flow directly to the oil refineries in the Midwestern United States and to the refining centers along the Gulf Coast. The completion of the Keystone XL pipeline is quite possibly a matter of survival for TransCanada. As a business, if they are to grow, they need to increase their pipeline capacity so that their expanding bitumen operations in the Alberta tar sands can get to the refineries in a cost effective matter. Beyond the simple business interests of a single company such as TransCanada lie some other more complicated issues relating to energy security and world trade. The permitting process for the Keystone XL phase is being handled by the State Department, not the Environmental Protection Agency. This is primarily because the agreement concerns a foreign country. But this fact also speaks to how many politicians and citizens in America view the development of the tar sands. The completion of the Keystone XL segment means heightened energy security for the United States. Many feel that completing this pipeline, despite all of the negative environmental consequences, is worth it because America will be less dependent on sources of petroleum in volatile regions of the world such as the Middle East and Western Africa. Disruption in oil supply from these places causes a drag on the slowly recovering American economy. When consumers of petroleum products have to pay more for gas and home heating oil, there is less money left over to spend on other segments of the economy. Less dependence on Saudi and Nigerian oil means a more stable economy and more stable commodity prices. Many view the Keystone XL segment of the pipeline as vital to the economy and the defense of the United States. Another very real issue that is causing many to call for the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline is the amount of jobs that would be created by such a massive construction project. Assemblers, welders, mechanical engineers and environmental scientists all could benefit from increased job creation. This has actually been the loudest rallying cry from those opposing the Obama administration’s decision to delay construction. Some economists friendly to these opponents suggest that as many as 20,000 Americans could be created by the project. Others feel that this projection is off the mark and wildly optimistic. The consensus seems to be that closer to 5,000 jobs will be created. This is still substantial, considering the number of Americans seeking work, but the reality is these jobs would last for a few years. The Keystone XL phase of the pipeline will take about two years to complete. Once the project is finished, then the jobs will go away. A final reason that many are arguing for the completion of the Keystone XL phase to be completed concerns global trade. There is considerable anxiety among some lawmakers and policy wonks in Washington D.C. about securing the petroleum in the Alberta tar sands for use in the United States. Growing economies in China and India need greater and greater amounts of fossil fuels. China’s growing economy has cause an increase in commodity prices for goods such as oil, natural gas and cement. Some experts worry that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not completed as planned, then TransCanada will pursue plans to make the petroleum in the Alberta tar sands primarily an export good not for the United States, but for China. This could easily be achieved by creating an entirely new pipeline from northern Alberta to Canada’s west coast in British Columbia. Potential sites for export terminals that can accommodate supertankers have already been identified, as have preliminary investigations into a potential pipeline route. These plans worry lawmakers in the United States because they see cheap access for China to Canada’s petroleum products as a loss in prestige and competitive ability for the United States. Both sides of the Keystone XL controversy have valid points. It is an undeniable fact that jobs, access to cheap energy and a friendly environment for businesses to produce revenue are important to America. These are strong arguments for completing the Keystone XL pipeline as originally planned. These are also the most compelling arguments given the current state of the American economy. People feel desperate and want to have the security that comes with good employment. Part of this uneasiness also can be centered in the new era of global competition that the American worker needs to deal with. China has caused the loss of primacy the American worker and the American economy once enjoyed. However powerful these economic arguments are, they still are less powerful than the environmental arguments. That is why we need to ensure that the proper environmental policies are put into place. The regulations currently in place that are designed to protect the Ogallala Aquifer are insufficient to protect against an oil spill. Two possible remedies may address that fact. The first is an improvement in the requirements for construction and monitoring requirements for the construction of the pipeline (Couperwaite, 1984). A greater number of check valves, remote sensing technology that automatically shuts those valves and other technological advances should be required in this project due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the pipeline. This will add cost to the project for TransCanada, but it is not the government’s job to help TransCanada to maximize their profit from the Keystone XL pipeline. The construction and monitoring regulations must be bolstered and TransCanada will have to decide if the project will make enough of a profit soon enough to satisfy their shareholders. A second possible course of action would be to prohibit the construction of the pipeline in the most ecologically sensitive parts of the aquifer, such as the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The pipeline could be rerouted in a way that an oil spill would be less likely to infiltrate the ground and spoil the water in the aquifer. Currently, this is the regulation that TransCanada is offering as an olive leaf to the Obama administration. An alternative route have been charted and proposed. TransCanada is currently awaiting the administration’s decision. Offsetting the effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions from the development is the Alberta tar sands is a trickier proposition from a regulatory standpoint. Data shows that the tar sands development will add as much as .5oC (Howe, 2013). This may not sound like much, but it is enough to significantly contribute to the effects of global warming that we can already see, such as rising sea level, melting polar ice and more powerful hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. We are to the point in our history where we have the technology to produce more sustainable energy than ever before. It simply costs more money. For too long, we have allowed economic concerns primacy when regulatory matters are considered. Regulation is needed to deal with the development of new sources of fossil fuels that will contribute to global warming. One sort of regulation that could work is a ratified agreement between the United States and Canada that required the offsetting of carbon dioxide emissions through a variety of activities that would contribute to the future of sustainable energy and/or the leveling off carbon dioxide emissions. One regulation that could accomplish this goal would be to require a ratio of renewable:nonrenewable energy to be developed. For every kilojoule of petroleum pumped from the tar sands, TransCanada must produce themselves or through a subcontractor .5 - .7 kilojoules of renewable energy through the development and implementation of wind, solar, tidal or geothermal energy technologies. What this will do eventually is create an economy of scale for renewable energy technologies and devices. TransCanada will see less profit from the Keystone XL project but could work within the confines of the new regulation to become a global leader in renewable energy. A final regulation that could help the global effects of the Keystone XL pipeline is to require TransCanada to create carbon sinks in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide produced by developing the Alberta tar sands. Terrestrial sinks such a forests and carbon sequestration are established technologies that can level off carbon dioxide emissions. This is not an ideal solution because carbon sequestration is a generational issue and will not make an immediate impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the regulation will be important for the long-term health of the planet. Petroleum is a great energy source because is to incredibly calorie dense. We need to recognize that is has its dangers and that we are starting to experience these dangers on a global scale. Regulations such as this need to be implemented if the Keystone XL phase is to be allowed to go through. Works Cited Avery, Samuel. The Pipeline and the Paradigm: Keystone XL, Tar Sands, and the Battle to Defuse the Carbon Bomb. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Couperthwaite, Sandra L. "Geotechnical Aspects of Pipeline Construction in Alberta: Discussion." Canadian Geotechnical Journal 21.4 (1984): 732-33. Print. "How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American." How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?: Scientific American. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2013. "Keystone XL Pipeline Project." TransCanada Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 June 2013. Little, Jane Braxton. "Saving the Ogallala Aquifer." Scientific American 19.1 (2009): 32-39. Print. Pohl, Walter. Economic Geology: Principles and Practice : Metals, Minerals, Coal and Hydrocarbons - Introduction to Formation and Sustainable Exploitation of Mineral Deposits. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print. Read More